I don't sort my cases by case weight or case volume either , WAY to much time and effort in that . Although I have and do from time to time weigh my cases and check case volume . How ever that's to see why one good charge/load worked in one lot of cases and not another . I use a lot of LC case in both 223 and 308 . I've not done much if any case volume test with 223 but have done some with 308 . As you can see with my numbers above . There's not much difference but I can say that the same load in my LC-14 cases does not shoot the same in the LC-10 cases and vice versa .
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
weight sorting rifle brass
- Thread starter dodpilot
- Start date
FrankenMauser
New member
That statement (original quotation) is absolute garbage, in my opinion.
Even in .30 WCF (".30-30"), I've seen as much as 8% velocity difference between different lots of same-brand cases.
Even at 50 yards, that results in different points of impact.
And that's not even getting into what I've seen with .270 Win, .30-06, and .243 Win...
Volume arguably matters more than weight, but weight sorting (typically to 0.1 or 0.2 grain) has shown a difference in my loads. ...As mentioned before: Even in .30 WCF - a cartridge universally derided as inaccurate and not worth spending time 'accurizing' - it has proven well worth my time.
I can't even comment on other replies at this time. That quotation is so ridiculous, in my experience, that I honestly cannot believe it was published.
Even in .30 WCF (".30-30"), I've seen as much as 8% velocity difference between different lots of same-brand cases.
Even at 50 yards, that results in different points of impact.
And that's not even getting into what I've seen with .270 Win, .30-06, and .243 Win...
Volume arguably matters more than weight, but weight sorting (typically to 0.1 or 0.2 grain) has shown a difference in my loads. ...As mentioned before: Even in .30 WCF - a cartridge universally derided as inaccurate and not worth spending time 'accurizing' - it has proven well worth my time.
I can't even comment on other replies at this time. That quotation is so ridiculous, in my experience, that I honestly cannot believe it was published.
FrankenMauser,
I don't disagree with your assessment, but I have to question whether the point of impact differences would have ruined a hunt. Being two inches off at 50 yards is a four minute dispersion, but inconsequential if you are hunting deer.
A 4 minute load is still better than some Federal factory ammo I've shot which came in at 8 inches spread at 100 yards. Not pretty, I thought there was something wrong with my rifle, but no, the rifle and scope were fine, just crappy factory ammo.
Dan Newberry's experiment with three different case brands still producing ammunition that shot sub MOA at distance using his OCW load up method seems to support the conclusion that at some sweet spot you don't need to sort cases to get good accuracy. Empirical evidence points out that if you aren't in that sweet spot, every little inconsistency adds up to group dispersion.
Of course Dan's experiment was with his lot of powder being shot through his rifle. Our mileage may vary.
Jimro
I don't disagree with your assessment, but I have to question whether the point of impact differences would have ruined a hunt. Being two inches off at 50 yards is a four minute dispersion, but inconsequential if you are hunting deer.
A 4 minute load is still better than some Federal factory ammo I've shot which came in at 8 inches spread at 100 yards. Not pretty, I thought there was something wrong with my rifle, but no, the rifle and scope were fine, just crappy factory ammo.
Dan Newberry's experiment with three different case brands still producing ammunition that shot sub MOA at distance using his OCW load up method seems to support the conclusion that at some sweet spot you don't need to sort cases to get good accuracy. Empirical evidence points out that if you aren't in that sweet spot, every little inconsistency adds up to group dispersion.
Of course Dan's experiment was with his lot of powder being shot through his rifle. Our mileage may vary.
Jimro
FrankenMauser
New member
I understand, Jimro.
And it does depend upon the cartridge, rifle, components, and application.
But the load I cited, in weight-sorted brass, shoots 0.350" to 0.540" at 100 yards in a 16.25" Marlin 336, if I do my part with a good scope.
It doesn't matter which brand and lot of brass I use (other than velocity and trajectory being changed).
Group sizes remain small and predictable.
When you start with something like that, introducing a four-minute deviation is disastrous.
For hunting paper, four minutes is bad.
For hunting game, it's even worse, in my opinion.
I cannot, in good conscience, launch a bullet at a big game animal with the expectation that it will hit somewhere in a four to eight inch hit box, when a little time weight-sorting brass means that's a 0.5" to 1" hit box.
There are enough variables in the field that can work against the precision of a load. If I can eliminate one or more at the reloading bench, I will.
Probably five years ago, now, I tested weight-sorted R-P brass for .270 Win.
I know I posted about it here, but can't find the thread or details now.
Three hundred (five hundred?) cases were fully prepped and then sorted by weight into 0.1 gr lots, with the extreme ends of the spectrum combined into a single lot.
A 20-round box of brass from the middle of the bell curve was put up against the extreme weights box (20-round), with a load that averaged a bit under 0.400" at 100 yards in my Ruger 77 Mk II.
The mid-range box did what it was supposed to.
But the extreme weights box printed a scatter-plot group just shy of 2.5", if I remember correctly.
(That load was developed in R-P brass and has never been tested elsewhere.)
However...
I am more than willing to admit that I have found instances where weight-sorting doesn't really matter; and have cartridge where I simply haven't even tried.
Two examples:
Though I sort all R-P, WIN, and Federal brass for .30-06, I have found that it's a waste of time for Lapua (no surprise) and certain years of LC. My preferred LC .30-06 cases are LC 67, followed closely by LC 69.
Both lots that I have are fantastically consistent, and could probably be mixed without impacting performance enough for me to care.
With the 6x45mm, I stick with Hornady and PPU brass (easy to sort out of the other .223/5.56 cases). Other than just throwing a few cases across the scale out of curiosity, I have never bothered weighing them, let alone sorting beyond head stamp. I think I have five established loads right now, and the worst of them, actually a 'medium game' load, shoots about 0.6" at 100 yards.
I don't need to be ultra-precise with that rifle and cartridge (it's just for varmints and 'medium game'), and it's good enough for my standards as-is; so I'm not going to rock the boat by chasing more precision.
If one never sorts, then one will never know if an improvement could be found.
If one does sort, and finds that there is no notable improvement, then it may not be worth one's time.
And if one does sort, and finds a notable improvement, it is very difficult to give it up and return to "good enough".
The only way to know is to try it.
And it does depend upon the cartridge, rifle, components, and application.
But the load I cited, in weight-sorted brass, shoots 0.350" to 0.540" at 100 yards in a 16.25" Marlin 336, if I do my part with a good scope.
It doesn't matter which brand and lot of brass I use (other than velocity and trajectory being changed).
Group sizes remain small and predictable.
When you start with something like that, introducing a four-minute deviation is disastrous.
For hunting paper, four minutes is bad.
For hunting game, it's even worse, in my opinion.
I cannot, in good conscience, launch a bullet at a big game animal with the expectation that it will hit somewhere in a four to eight inch hit box, when a little time weight-sorting brass means that's a 0.5" to 1" hit box.
There are enough variables in the field that can work against the precision of a load. If I can eliminate one or more at the reloading bench, I will.
Probably five years ago, now, I tested weight-sorted R-P brass for .270 Win.
I know I posted about it here, but can't find the thread or details now.
Three hundred (five hundred?) cases were fully prepped and then sorted by weight into 0.1 gr lots, with the extreme ends of the spectrum combined into a single lot.
A 20-round box of brass from the middle of the bell curve was put up against the extreme weights box (20-round), with a load that averaged a bit under 0.400" at 100 yards in my Ruger 77 Mk II.
The mid-range box did what it was supposed to.
But the extreme weights box printed a scatter-plot group just shy of 2.5", if I remember correctly.
(That load was developed in R-P brass and has never been tested elsewhere.)
However...
I am more than willing to admit that I have found instances where weight-sorting doesn't really matter; and have cartridge where I simply haven't even tried.
Two examples:
Though I sort all R-P, WIN, and Federal brass for .30-06, I have found that it's a waste of time for Lapua (no surprise) and certain years of LC. My preferred LC .30-06 cases are LC 67, followed closely by LC 69.
Both lots that I have are fantastically consistent, and could probably be mixed without impacting performance enough for me to care.
With the 6x45mm, I stick with Hornady and PPU brass (easy to sort out of the other .223/5.56 cases). Other than just throwing a few cases across the scale out of curiosity, I have never bothered weighing them, let alone sorting beyond head stamp. I think I have five established loads right now, and the worst of them, actually a 'medium game' load, shoots about 0.6" at 100 yards.
I don't need to be ultra-precise with that rifle and cartridge (it's just for varmints and 'medium game'), and it's good enough for my standards as-is; so I'm not going to rock the boat by chasing more precision.
If one never sorts, then one will never know if an improvement could be found.
If one does sort, and finds that there is no notable improvement, then it may not be worth one's time.
And if one does sort, and finds a notable improvement, it is very difficult to give it up and return to "good enough".
The only way to know is to try it.